State v. Courtsol
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | THAYER, J. |
| Citation | 94 A. 973,89 Conn. 564 |
| Parties | STATE v. COURTSOL |
| Decision Date | 16 July 1915 |
89 Conn. 564
STATE
v.
COURTSOL
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
July 16, 1915.
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.
Julia A. Courtsol was convicted of larceny, and appeals, alleging error in the refusal to charge as requested and in the charge as given. Affirmed.
Charles F. Roberts and Charles J. Martin, both of New Haven, for appellant. Walter M. Pickett, Asst. State's Atty., and Arnon A. Ailing, State's Atty., both of New Haven, for the State.
THAYER, J. The defendant was a passenger on a trolley car operated by a common carrier in New Haven, when the complainant entered the car and took a seat upon the same bench or seat with and about a foot from her. He had in his possession at the time a package of money carefully done up in brown paper, with a rubber band around it. This was seven or eight inches in length and three or four inches in width and thickness, and contained 288 bank bills of various denominations, of the value of $1,107, and $28.64 in change—silver quarter dollars, nickels, and pennies. There was no name or mark upon the package indicating to whom it belonged. The complainant had also in his possession at the time another larger and more cumbersome package, and after he was seated he placed the first-named package upon the bench in the vacant space between himself and the defendant. He left the car before the defendant did, and inadvertently left the package of money upon the bench where he had placed it. After he left the car the defendant picked up the package and took it with her when she afterwards left the car. Soon after leaving the car she placed the package in a hand bag which she had with her. She later, after reaching her destination, opened the hand bag and tore off a portion of the covering of the package, and discovered that it contained some greenish papers, but did not take them from the package until she had returned to her home by the trolley. At her home in the evening she opened the package and found that it contained a large sum of money, which she at once made into two packages and took to an ice factory adjoining her home, in which her son was employed, and there placed them in the drawer of a desk. She did not notify the trolley company or its employés, or any one else, that she had found and picked up the package. In the evening of the day it was lost her son read to her an account of the loss, which was published in an evening paper, giving the name and residence of the complainant as the one who had lost the package, and stating that an advertisement offering a reward for its recovery had been published. The following afternoon the complainant, his son, and a detective called upon the defendant and inquired of her whether she was upon the car when the package was left and if she saw and picked up the package. She admitted that she was upon the car, but said that she had not seen or taken the package. In the evening of the same day the same detective with an officer with a warrant for her arrest called at her house, and she again denied that she had taken the package. She was then arrested and taken to the station house. When about to be locked up she told the officers that she did not have the money in her possession, but knew where it was, and if they would take her to her home she would get it for them. She was then taken to her home, and there turned over all the money in two packages to the officers.
The defendant testified and claimed that before she entered the car she had made several small purchases, which were done up in one package and wrapped in brown paper, that this package was of about the same size and appearance as the one which she took from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crosswell, No. 14286
...Emphasizing constructive possession, we have held that lost property may be the subject of a [223 Conn. 254] larceny. State v. Courtsol, 89 Conn. 564, 567-68, 94 A. 973 (1915); Ransom v. State, 22 Conn. 153, 160 (1852). The state's evidence established, at a minimum, that someone other than......
-
State v. Kealey, No. 17527-4-II
...§ 3.5, at 30. See also 1 Am.Jur.2d, supra, § 24, at 32-33. 34 1 Am.Jur.2d, supra, § 25, at 32-33; § 10, at 14. 35 State v. Courtsol, 89 Conn. 564, 94 A. 973, 975 36 Maitlen v. Hazen, 9 Wash.2d 113, 124, 113 P.2d 1008 (1941). 37 State v. Stanphill, 53 Wash.App. 623, 626-27, 769 P.2d 861 (198......
-
Grant v. West Haven Gardens Co.
...of the plaintiffs and must be returned to them. Sharkiewicz v. Lepone, 139 Conn. 706, 707-708, 96 A.2d 796 (1953); State v. Courtsol, 89 Conn. 564, 568-69, 94 A. 973 (1915); see Favorite v. Miller, 176 Conn. 310, 312-13, 407 A.2d 974 (1978). The defendants' sole argument on appeal is that t......
-
Brockman v. State
...is pointed out in Groover v. Florida, 82 Fla. 427, 90 So. 473, 26 A. L. R. p. 375, with note page 381. See, also, State v. Courtsol, 89 Conn. 564, 94 A. 973, L. R. A. 1916A, 465. We are therefore compelled to hold that the evidence here does not warrant a conviction of defendant under the l......
-
State v. Crosswell, No. 14286
...Emphasizing constructive possession, we have held that lost property may be the subject of a [223 Conn. 254] larceny. State v. Courtsol, 89 Conn. 564, 567-68, 94 A. 973 (1915); Ransom v. State, 22 Conn. 153, 160 (1852). The state's evidence established, at a minimum, that someone other than......
-
State v. Kealey, No. 17527-4-II
...§ 3.5, at 30. See also 1 Am.Jur.2d, supra, § 24, at 32-33. 34 1 Am.Jur.2d, supra, § 25, at 32-33; § 10, at 14. 35 State v. Courtsol, 89 Conn. 564, 94 A. 973, 975 36 Maitlen v. Hazen, 9 Wash.2d 113, 124, 113 P.2d 1008 (1941). 37 State v. Stanphill, 53 Wash.App. 623, 626-27, 769 P.2d 861 (198......
-
Grant v. West Haven Gardens Co.
...of the plaintiffs and must be returned to them. Sharkiewicz v. Lepone, 139 Conn. 706, 707-708, 96 A.2d 796 (1953); State v. Courtsol, 89 Conn. 564, 568-69, 94 A. 973 (1915); see Favorite v. Miller, 176 Conn. 310, 312-13, 407 A.2d 974 (1978). The defendants' sole argument on appeal is that t......
-
Brockman v. State
...is pointed out in Groover v. Florida, 82 Fla. 427, 90 So. 473, 26 A. L. R. p. 375, with note page 381. See, also, State v. Courtsol, 89 Conn. 564, 94 A. 973, L. R. A. 1916A, 465. We are therefore compelled to hold that the evidence here does not warrant a conviction of defendant under the l......